Here we go (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692153.stm)

World War 3...

Iran + Syria = Allies

Syria is a long known safe harbor for Terrorist (or freedom fighters to Jedd because he is a terrorist) activity and major supply lines to those already fighting coalition troop inside the Iraqi boarder. Good on our boys!

Syria is a long known safe harbor for Terrorist (or freedom fighters to Jedd because he is a terrorist) activity and major supply lines to those already fighting coalition troop inside the Iraqi boarder. Good on our boys!

America is so dead to you, no terrorist can do to her what you are doing and allowing to be done.

BLAH BLAH BLAH Jedd..BLAH BLAH!

America is so dead to you, no terrorist can do to her what you are doing and allowing to be done.


So you are saying that no terrorist can post an anonymous message on an internet forum and upset you more than Osg? Damn, he is powerful!

I think what he means is people who have the values Osgilliath claims to represent have hurt this country far more than any terrorist ever could.

I am skeptical Osgiliath could potentially be as ignorant as he pretends to be, and is probably quite liberal in reality and just likes to stir up shit.

I hope that everyone who advocates war gets to go and fight one.

How would we get all the overweight former high-school football nobodies with their half-assed crew cuts out of the made-in-Japan Tundras and into BDUs though? Cranes?

I think what he means is people who have the values Osgilliath claims to represent have hurt this country far more than any terrorist ever could.

I am skeptical Osgiliath could potentially be as ignorant as he pretends to be, and is probably quite liberal in reality and just likes to stir up shit.


This ^

Syria is a long known safe harbor for Terrorist (or freedom fighters to Jedd because he is a terrorist) activity and major supply lines to those already fighting coalition troop inside the Iraqi boarder. Good on our boys!


I think I'm going to grill some steaks. I've been grilling steak and for about the last 3 minutes I have been sprinkling crumbled Bleu Cheese on top, it's pretty good. Instead of the standard A-1 sauce I also use Peter Lugars. Quite good with a hint of tomato in it.

I think I'm going to grill some steaks. I've been grilling steak and for about the last 3 minutes I have been sprinkling crumbled Bleu Cheese on top, it's pretty good. Instead of the standard A-1 sauce I also use Peter Lugars. Quite good with a hint of tomato in it.

I am actually going to put some steak on my foreman grill tomorrow with some lawry's seasoning... man that stuff is good.

'World War 3...

Iran + Syria = Allies'

- That is hillarious, that war would take about 3 weeks. Do you honestly believe Syria and Iran have even the remotest capacity to initiate something as substantial as World War 3?!?!? I hate it when that concept gets thrown around willy nilly.

You are such a twat.

'World War 3...

Iran + Syria = Allies'

- That is hillarious, that war would take about 3 weeks. Do you honestly believe Syria and Iran have even the remotest capacity to initiate something as substantial as World War 3?!?!? I hate it when that concept gets thrown around willy nilly.

You are such a twat.

Truthfully Halo, if we think about this some, China and Russia greatly depend on the oil in the gulf as much as we do and have military capabilities to back their shit up. If they tell the United States to gtfo and we don't, it could escalate, especially after some of the nonsense in Georgia that we've started.

WW1 was a small series of incidents that escalated rapidly, it could happen again.

'World War 3...

Iran + Syria = Allies'

- That is hillarious, that war would take about 3 weeks. Do you honestly believe Syria and Iran have even the remotest capacity to initiate something as substantial as World War 3?!?!? I hate it when that concept gets thrown around willy nilly.

You are such a twat.

Iran + Syria + Russia...

Let me give you a scenario.

We attack Syria
Iran and Syria attack Israel
We attack Iran, Israel attacks Syria
Russia Attacks us
China invades Taiwan
Hezbollah and Hamas attack Israel
Israel uses a nuke
WW3

I also think its hilarious that you think a war against Syria and Iran alone would take only 3 weeks.

Iran + Syria + Russia...

Let me give you a scenario.

We attack Syria
Iran and Syria attack Israel
We attack Iran, Israel attacks Syria
Russia Attacks us
China invades Taiwan
Hezbollah and Hamas attack Israel
Israel uses a nuke
WW3

I also think its hilarious that you think a war against Syria and Iran alone would take only 3 weeks.

Well, Mission Accomplished in 3 weeks. Then 8 years of war.

Russia is a little busy undermining their former satellites ( http://en.rian.ru/world/20081027/117969363.html ) and isn't likely to start a war over Syria. For that matter, neither are we. Any serious resistance and we'll back off.

Russia and China start a war over Syria?!?! Your grasp of international politics is laughable!

China's reliance on middle eastern oil is something that has been lessening these past 7 years with their increasing investment in places like the Niger, the Sudan and the growth of commercial and trade treaties with the South American OPEC states. Yes, China still depends to an increasing extent on oil from Iran, for example, but it could never serve as a casus belli for China to participate in a World War.
China imports, what, 3m barrels of oil a day? That's nowhere near Japan, the US or the EU's consumption which is several times that!
Furthermore, China's entire economic lifeline depends on its trillion dollars of trade with the US and the EU. Modern China has been built on the export of cheap, western textiles and toys, not on the import of Iranian oil.
Furthermore, Russia's war with Georgia facilitated the almost complete collapse of its financial sector after the withdrawal of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Western investment, stock and capital. Russia, let alone China, have neither the logisitcal capabilities nor the technological possession to launch operations in aid of Iran and Syria. And what on earth would they have to gain by doing so? Both depend on Western markets, both depend on Western consumption, both depend on world trade. Russia's resurgence, if you can call it that, was built on the export of oil and gas to Europe, the pipelines of which are one of its prized revenue building assets.

The idea that "We attack syria, syria attacks israel, israel nukes Iran, Iran attacks Israel, we attack Iran, China attacks us...." is the geo-political conclusion of a four year old.

Grow up mate.

Halo pretty much sums it up well.

Wait, you're assuming the World War III will be initiated by reasonable, logical players? Hmm...

There is another consideration not yet mentioned which might well affect both the Chinese and Russian decisions to intervene, and that is their own less than positive experiences with Muslim extremists. I would not be at all surprised if either or both simply stood back and waited to step in at the end of the conflict as "non-involved negotiators of the peace".

'Wait, you're assuming the World War III will be initiated by reasonable, logical players? Hmm...'

- Nop, just countries with too much to loose.

Too much to lose? Honestly Halo, you're supposed to be a child of history and I'm a bit disappointed. We all know it wasn't a global war over a single assassination, there were plenty of minor factors that all escalated very rapidly.

Lets think for a second about the world at large right now. First, we have Iran in a newfound state of power due to our (US and Britain, among others) manhandling of Iraq. Iran has a religious and political vendetta against Israel, one of the United States' largest allies.

Globally, the demand for oil compared to its depleting reserves is starting to wake a lot of countries up. Luckily for us the Lorax and Greenpeace haven't kept us from melting enough polar ice to uncover vast reserves (estimated 25% of the world's reserve) in the Arctic not to mention extremely powerful shipping routes which save thousands of miles on a trip from the US to China / Russia and so forth. In fact, this summer was the very first summer in recorded history that both the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage were both open able to be navigated by ships. China, the United States, and Russia all staked claims to the same newfound resources and are all arguing over who gets them, and in turn, gets a corner on the oil and natural gas markets for the next few decades (as well as ownership of commerce routes, the estimated diamond reserves, nickel for our hybrid vehicle batteries, and so forth).

The United States, for reasons no one will ever understand, has both been instigating conflict between former Russian states and Russia, as well as involving itself in military matters in Syria, without international approval.

World economies are failing, and the blame can be left on a number of shoulders, though there is no doubt a lot of countries blame the US. Its becoming increasingly evident through these financial blunders and crisis, as well as our blundering of the war in Iraq, that we aren't the superpower we once were while China and Russia are gaining at a rapid pace. There have been plenty of posts on this forum about Russia's military stockpiling and China's newfound focus on space and militaristic applications.

No one went into World War 1 figuring it would end up the way it did. I remember my history teachers speaking of a giant powder keg that only needed a minor spark. We haven't learned from history in other regards, what makes one so certain it couldn't happen again? While I wouldn't debate that it is likely, there is plenty to argue in favor of the possibility. We certainly had plenty speaking out about the great losses compared to gains with our meddling in Iraq, and that didn't stop anyone from going ahead full steam.

I agree with Halo's analysis. Syria is a bit part player and will have no major military backing from China or Russia though the usual diplomatic protests can be expected. This is particularly true since Syria has been complicit in Iraq's troubles for several years and everyone (including China and Russia) knows it. Iran will squeal but will do nothing. They themselves have launched similar attacks across Iraq's border to deal with Kurdish separatists in the last couple of years as have the Turks. Russia just got done with a serious invasion deep across Georgia's border, so they have no room to complain about a small skirmish with islamic terrorists just across Syria's border. China needs US trade even in the current downturn far more than it needs Syria for anything.

The sky is not falling and short of a major military invasion of Syria by the US, nothing much will be done by Russia, Iran or China.

I think Russia might even welcome a bit more destabilization in the region as it would drive oil prices up.

I'm not saying big events need big reasons, Kel. Of course history shows us countless examples where small conflicts have created gigantic waves unequal to the original splash. But not world wars, sorry. Behind WW1 there were massive driving forces of conflicting diplomacy that had been in place for at least 30 years (or since the rise of Bismarck). The destablisation of the Balkans that supposedly 'started' WW1 had been a process in place since the erosion of Ottoman power and the rise of Slavic nationalism in the 1870s. And diplomacy was just one of a number of larger macro-factors that meant while WW1 was not inevitable, a strong foundation for global conflict had been lain for many years - Anglo-German naval race, Franco-German hostility since France's defeat in the War of 1871, Russian growth since the renunciation of the Peace of Paris in 1871, Austro-Hungarian destabalisation and the growth of its nationalist peripheries, to name but a few.

It wasn't merely Austro-Hungary being the bully, Serbia being the thorn, and everyone else jumping in to help. Stuff like that just doesn't happen. And though I would agree that there are certain larger, more simmering issues surrounding a potential outbreak of hostilities between the US and Syria-Iran, I just do not believe there are the global issues in place to create a third world war. Ten, twenty, thirty years? Maybe (depending on a real change of circumstance, or a radical increase in current factors). But right now? Just wouldn't seem likely, for the reasons suggested.

Mucho /agree with Elemak and Gulor.

Well the funny thing is, there's no way to prove it either way. And when a WW3 does break out, I won't even be able to come on here and post "I told you so" because I'm in the blast radius from DC :(

Well the funny thing is, there's no way to prove it either way. And when a WW3 does break out, I won't even be able to come on here and post "I told you so" because I'm in the blast radius from DC :(


I'll post for you :D

That was funny Kel! same here got an aircraft carrier parked 1.5 miles away from me and the boeing plant 5 miles up the hill. definate first wave casualty. at least it's better than radiation sickness.

People who plan "end of the world emergencies" scare me :(

I might or might not make it, depending upon whose nuke hits Denver and how big it is. I'm sort of on the periphery and a small one probably would not get me in the blast radius if it were centered over downtown. A big Russian nuke would likely get me regardless.

If I had any reasonable warning at all, I'd be out of town and upwind ASAP.

I'm more concerned about TMI than I am of nukes!